Goldy

I suppose it would be nice for the United States to have the moral authority to condemn Russia’s unprovoked, full scale invasion of Georgia, a sovereign nation, but you know… we don’t.

Sure, I suppose there is a sizable chunk of voters out in Washington’s 4th Congressional District who fully understand that Rep. “Doc” Hastings isn’t really a doctor, but despite persistent claims on his resume that he attended both Central Washington University and Columbia Basin College, it turns out Hastings isn’t even a college graduate, a biographical tidbit the local news media apparently never thought relevant, but which screamed out to Jimmy at McCranium after reading news accounts of a commencement speech Hastings recently gave at CWU:

“I remember the winter,” said Hastings. “It got to 23 below in Ellensburg one day — and that alone could be reason enough to leave college. But, no in reality my grades were less than stellar and I chose to leave school after the fall quarter. I ended up in California for several years, where I met my wife, before returning to Pasco to run our family business.”

Yeah, nothing makes one prouder of the four years of hard work and thousands of dollars of student loans one just spent earning a college diploma than a commencement speech given by a US Congressman without one. But then, I guess you can forgive the folks at CWU for choosing a college dropout as their commencement speaker when Hastings has done such a masterful job of obscuring his lack of a formal education.

(Hastings opponent, George Fearing, by the way, has a BA in Business Administration from Walla Walla University and is a graduate of the University of Washington Law School. Fucking elitist.)

It is interesting to note that all six of WA’s House Democrats have earned post-graduate degrees (McDermott and Baird can even claim to be actual “doctors”) while Cathy McMorris-Rodgers is the academic superstar of the Republican delegation, earning a four-year BA from an unaccredited Christian college and an EMBA from the UW. For his part, Dave Reichert has a two-year AA degree from a small Christian college (at least it’s accredited) and… well… that’s it. (By comparison, Darcy Burner has a degree in computer science and economics from some podunk school called “Harvard” or something.)

Not to be an academic snob or anything, but well, I am, and while I’d be the last to claim that a prestigious degree or even a college education is a prerequisite for success in life, it does tell you something about the person… something Hastings went to lengths to hide in his earlier runs for Congress. So you’d think the local media might have remarked on Hastings’ remarkable lack of education… but apparently, they were just as uncurious as he was.

You win some and you lose some I guess, as the Seattle Times balances out an endorsement for Democratic Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler with an endorsement for the deceptive and undemocratic King County Initiative 26. Using our NHL-style scoreboard (two points for a victory, one point for a tie), that brings our current standings to Republicans 11, Democrats 7.

Sure, Bruce Ramsey may find it annoying, my arbitrary declaration of I-26 as a Republican initiative, but it really isn’t all that arbitrary. I-26 would turn the county council, executive and auditor into “nonpartisan” positions, essentially allowing Republicans to hide their party affiliation, thus becoming more competitive in races they’d otherwise never have a snowball’s chance in because, you know… they’re Republicans. As I’ve said before, nonpartisanship is the last refuge of Republicans in a region where Republicanism has become a dirty word, and in that context I-26 is most definitely a Republican initiative.

It is also a small “d” undemocratic initiative because it gives voters less information about the candidates and thus leaves them less able to choose those candidates who best reflect their own political leanings. That, after all, is what party labels are about… a political shorthand by which we compare one candidate to another. I wish every voter was as engaged in politics as me and Ramsey, but they’re not, and so party identification is a useful tool for those who don’t embrace politics as a vocation or a hobby.

And finally, I-26 is a bad initiative because nonpartisanship is essentially a lie… a mythical ideal just as fictional as the objectivity and impartiality for which Ramsey’s newspaper supposedly strives. Stripping the “R” off Pete von Reichbauer won’t make him any less of a Republican, but it will make him more electable in a district that is steadily trending Democratic. And that’s exactly I-26’s point.

Seattle Times Endorsements	GP	W	L		T	Pts
Republicans	9	4	2		3	11
Democrats	9	2	4		3	7
Third Parties	9	0	9		0	0

Seattle Times editorial columnist Bruce Ramsey takes issue with my running scoreboard of his ed board’s candidate endorsements (Republicans 9, Democrats 5 at last count… 11-5 if you count the Times’ endorsement of I-26), and since nobody has bothered to post a comment in his thread, I thought I’d add my own comment here:

Oh… boo-hoo.

Of course, my scoreboard is tongue-in-cheek, and my determination of who is and who is not a real Democrat somewhat arbitrary, but however you score it there’s a larger point to made about the Times’ tendency to be out of step with their own readers, a tendency not easily explained away by Ramsey:

Is the Times Editorial Board Republican? In 2000 we endorsed George Bush—and Gary Locke. In 2004 we endorsed Dino Rossi—and John Kerry. Maybe we are conflicted, but party-line we are not.

Conflicted, no doubt, and I’ve never implied that the Times endorsements are party-line Republican, but I think that an ed board that inexplicably endorsed Mike McGavick’s self-immolating campaign while agreeing with Maria Cantwell on every issue but one, and that viciously smeared Darcy Burner in lieu of any reasonable defense of her mediocre opponent… well, I think they have a bit of ‘splainin’ to do. I suppose Ramsey might consider a Rossi/Kerry endorsement split a proud sign of bipartisanship or nonpartisanship, but to me this bi/non crap is just the last refuge of Republicanism in a region where the Republican brand isn’t worth the bumper sticker it’s printed on.

Oh… and as for Ramsey’s description of HA as “howling-left”… as long as he’s railing against labels, I’d love for him to give me a definition of exactly what that means. On which issues exactly are we so extreme? Unless, of course, he’s merely referring to our rhetorical style, in which we promote rather center-left policies but in an occasionally “howling” manner.

No doubt HA’s choice of language isn’t you’re average “family newspaper” fare, so I was curious to see a reference on Slog to a Blog Readability Test, which rates Slog’s prose at a “High School” level. Unscientific as it may be, HA scores at a “College (Postgrad)” level, while Postman on Politics and Ramsey’s own Ed cetera blog join Slog at the “High School” level, and the tediously non-profane scribes at (un)Sound Politics are apparently writing toward a “Junior High School” audience. Figures.

As a post-grad level blogger, I think I can eloquently say: nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah.

Join me, Matt Stoller, and Joan “McJoan” McCarter, on Meet the Bloggers with host Cenk Uygur and special guest Darcy Burner today at 10 AM Pacific time, where we’ll be discussing the Responsible Plan to end the war in Iraq.  

Watch the live stream in the embedded player above (I think) or go to the meetthebloggers.org where you can join the conversation in the comment thread.

Score one for the good guys today as the Seattle Times editorial board endorses incumbent Judge Robin Hunt for Court of Appeals, Division II, over BIAW shill and former (un)Sound Politics contributor Tim Ford:

Hunt’s challenger is Tim Ford, the open-government ombudsman for Attorney General Rob McKenna and was deputy state solicitor. Before working for McKenna, he was the in-house counsel for the Building Industry Association of Washington, which paid for some of the nastiest ads in previous judicial races.

We have seen no such ads in Ford’s race, and don’t expect any.

We like Ford’s emphasis on protecting the individual citizen and his enthusiastic support of public disclosure, but he has no judicial record and no jury-trial experience.

Legal know-it-alls tell me that Judge Hunt isn’t all that, but Ford isn’t much of anything. Ask Ford’s “fellow lawyers” in the AG’s office about their “colleague’s” legal qualifications (and I use those terms loosely) and the best he can hope for is a nervous laugh or a dismissive eye roll. Then again, while actually seeing the inside of courtroom (in person, as opposed to, say, on TV) is usually a prerequisite for a position like deputy state solicitor let alone the Court of Appeals, the lack thereof didn’t seem to hold Attorney General Rob McKenna back any, so I guess you can’t blame Ford for trying.

Anyway, I’ve got no idea if Judge Hunt is much of a liberal, or even a Democrat, but Ford is certainly as Republican as they come, so following our NHL-style scorecard we award two points to the Democrats, and zero to the Republicans, tightening up the overall standings for statewide and other prominent races.

Seattle Times Endorsements	GP	W	L		T	Pts
Republicans	7	3	1		3	9
Democrats	7	1	3		3	5
Third Parties	7	0	6		0	0

PROGRAMMING NOTE:
Stay tuned for Meet the Bloggers at 10 AM.

Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert released their July fundraising totals today in advance of WA’s August 19 primary, and as reported by Postman (or maybe Emily Heffter, I’m kinda confused) it wasn’t even close.

Rep. Dave Reichert, the two-term Republican incumbent, raised $115,474 during July, compiling $929,113 in cash on hand.

Democratic challenger Darcy Burner raised more — $350,837– during July, and reported having almost $1.5 million in the bank. […] Burner has been outpacing Reichert in fundraising throughout the campaign, but she’s also been spending more.

“Burner raised more” …?  Talk about an understatement.  She raised over three times more.  And while yeah, sure, Burner’s numbers were pumped up by the incredible outpouring of affection and support in the wake of the fire that claimed her home, her cat and all her belongings, Reichert’s numbers are truly pathetic, barely covering his $100K in expenses for the month.

And as to Postman’s (Heffter’s?) assertion that Burner’s “also spending more,” um… no she hasn’t.  So far both campaigns have spent about a million dollars over the cycle, with Reichert actually outspending Burner by a few thousand dollars.

Running for office is hard work, and it’s beginning to look like Reichert just isn’t up to the task.  For example, Reichert relied on PAC money to make up over 55% of his anemic July total, whereas Burner only raised 5% from PACs.  That kind of disparity tells you a lot about both candidates’ work ethic, and their allegiances.

I’ll be joining Joan McCarter of Daily Kos, Matt Stoller of Open Left and host Cenk Uygur on Meet the Bloggers this Friday at 10 AM Pacific. Darcy Burner will be Cenk’s guest this week, and our topic will be her Responsible Plan to end the war in Iraq. You can stream the show live (I’ll embed a player here on HA) and participate through the comment thread, or you can view an archive after it’s posted.

In the months since Darcy introduced the Responsible Plan and fifty-some House and Senate challengers signed on to it, many of the plan’s major talking points have been quietly adopted by Democratic leaders including Barack Obama. Of course, this really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, considering that one of the most powerful lessons I learned from Darcy’s effort is that bringing our troops home from Iraq really isn’t rocket science. We all know the way… what’s been missing thus far has been the will.

Indeed, one of the most common criticisms of the Plan was that much of it wasn’t all that original, merely drawing from existing legislation and the proposals of the Baker/Hamilton Commission. But that’s also the Plan’s greatest strength, as much of its proposals are both uncontroversial and eminently doable.

What Darcy produced was a comprehensive legislative agenda… a roadmap for what she and her fellow congress members can do to end this war responsibly, and prevent the same sort of mistakes from happening again. Of course, it will take leaders like Darcy to see this Plan through to fruition.

I don’t always agree with with the P-I’s Joel Connelly, but I do respect him, so when he tells me that Tim Eyman’s latest for-profit initiative “deserves a look,” I decided to do exactly that. And you know what…? Connelly’s right; with I-985, Timmy may actually be “on to something.”

Or, on something as the case might be, considering much of what he’s proposing achieves the exact opposite of what he’s promising voters. Ah well… plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

Of course there’s a lot of stupid, selfish crap in Eyman’s initiative—that goes without saying—like opening HOV lanes to all comers outside the narrow hours of 6-9AM and 3-6PM weekdays that newly self-anointed transportation expert Eyman defines as rush hour. I’m sure that will win a bunch of votes from SOV drivers who fantasize about riding in the fast lane without the unbearable burden of a passenger… but if you think opening an extra lane to general purpose traffic is going to move things any faster on 520, there’s a shady fellow named Dino Rossi who has an eight-lane bridge to sell you.

Then there’s the popular synchronize traffic lights provision—a kinda silly, redundant mandate that reminds me of when my mother used to ask me to take out the trash as I was already halfway out the door with the bag, thus stripping me of an credit for taking the initiative. And of course there’s the “Reduce Congestion Fund,” a typically Eymanesque display of something for nothing legerdemain that fixes congestion without raising taxes by you know… stealing money from other stuff that taxpayers like.

But my favorite provision in I-985, the one that earns my endorsement, is the one that requires that tolls only be used to pay for the construction of the particular section of freeway or bridge on which they’re levied. I suppose Eyman supposes that this’ll tie the congestion pricers up in knots—which it will do—but take heart fellow enviros, for it will also result in less new road construction and fewer new miles of general purpose lanes built throughout the Puget Sound region and the state.

Let’s be clear: the 520 floating bridge is going to be replaced before it sinks into the lake (or perhaps, shortly thereafter); that is perhaps DOT’s number one priority. And all the current financing plans heavily rely on tolling both the 520 and I-90 bridges to pay for it. Remove I-90 tolls from the equation, and we not only lose a big chunk of federal funds that were predicated on tolling I-90, we also make it impossible to put any substantial toll on 520 without shifting the bulk of the traffic to its toll-free alternative.

This means we’re going to have to find a billion or so dollars elsewhere to pay for the new 520 bridge, and that money is going to come at the expense of other DOT projects throughout the region and the state. Yeah, that’s right all you Seattle haters on the other side of the mountains… if you vote to to prevent us from tolling ourselves to build our own bridge, the state will have no choice but to suck transportation dollars over the pass in our direction for a change.

And that Reduce Congestion Fund that pulls money out the general fund? Um… where is all this congestion that needs reducing? Why, in the Puget Sound region of course, meaning yet more tax dollars will be flowing East to West, courtesy of everybody’s favorite Mukilteo initiative impresario. But don’t worry Eastern and Central WA voters… Timmy’s going to synchronize all those traffic lights and open up all those HOV lanes that, you know… you don’t have.

Ironically, if I-985 passes it will largely be on the back of the “Fuck Seattle” vote, despite the fact that the end result will be a net inflow of tax dollars to our region. And doubly ironically, while Eyman claims to be addressing traffic congestion, the anti-tolling provisions will most definitely result in less road building, not more.

So if, like me, you want less road construction, not more, and you believe that increasing traffic congestion through stupid proposals like Eyman’s will only further incentivize voters to build more transit, then yeah, Joel’s right, I-985 does deserve a closer look, and perhaps, your very cynical vote.

With today’s endorsement of incumbent Brian Sonntag in the State Auditor’s race, the Seattle Times editorial endorsement scorecard now stands at Republicans 5, Democrats 0. Or figuring in the “Johnson Factor,” perhaps its 4-1… either way, Republicanism is still in the lead.

Sure, Sonntag technically “Prefers Democratic Party,” but since he’s become Tim Eyman’s bitch, even that vague label has become pretty damn meaningless. I mean, how many times is he going to audit Sound Transit? I guess if he audits long enough and often enough he’ll eventually catch Joni Earl lying about a blow job or something, but there must be some other state or local agency that deserves his undivided attention.

But I’ll be generous and split the difference, moving to an indecisive, NHL-style scorecard that awards two points for a win, and 1 point for a tie. That gives the R’s two points each for Reed, Martin and Bond, while awarding one point each to both teams for Sonntag, Johnson and the inexplicable Dorn-Bergeson dual endorsement in the SPI race. (I mean, what’s the point?)

So here are today’s revised standings:

Seattle Times Endorsements	GP	W	L		T	Pts
Republicans	6	3	0		3	9
Democrats	6	0	3		3	3
Third Parties	6	0	6		0	0

Not that I’m keeping score or anything, but the Seattle Times has started publishing their editorial endorsements, and with the addition today of top-two fellatrix Sam Reed for Secretary of State and licensed mortician Allan Martin for State Treasurer, so far it is Republicans 4, Democrats 0. Or maybe it’s 3-1… I can never keep my Justice Johnsons straight.

Yeah, sure, the Supreme Court is technically nonpartisan, but as in all nonpartisan races we all know who the Democrats and the Republicans really are (unless they’re named “Johnson”). For example, Justice Mary Fairhurst, let’s be honest, she’s a Democrat, and perhaps the most liberal member of the court. Which is exactly why the Times endorsed her opponent, Michael Bond.

Perhaps Bond really is qualified to serve… I’m no lawyer, so I dunno. But every other paper in the state thus far—including those from such liberal strongholds as Yakima, Tri-Cities and Walla Walla—have endorsed Fairhurst. So despite the Times’ tortured effort to explain away their endorsement, the truth is that they oppose Fairhurst for the exact same partisan reasons that I support her. The difference is, I’m honest about my bias.

I particularly like the headline in the online edition, “Rich are feeling pinched too,” but the simple fact that this story makes the front page of the Seattle Times tells you all you need to know about the life experience and day to day perspective its publisher.

Oh no… the rich are “spending less on luxury goods and are being more thrifty with their credit cards!” In fact, I understand that things have gotten so tough for the ultra wealthy, that some are even being forced to sell off their extensive newspaper holdings in Maine! Can you feel their pain? (I suppose the Blethens might chafe at my description of them as “ultra wealthy,” but that just shows how out of touch they really are.)

And… that the Times editors thought this fabulously wealthy human interest story worthy of front page placement is even funnier in light of the tiny little teaser they squeezed into the bottom right hand corner:

Grow your food City dwellers across the country are planting gardens to save money

Yeah sure, the working and middle class are farming their backyards so that they can afford to feed their families… but at least they’re not being forced to suffer the humiliation of shopping around for the best deal on private jets.  I suppose that explains the relative placement of the two stories.

Call me a curmudgeon, but this Southeast Seattle resident has grown to dread Seafair.

As a 16-year transplant I’ve never quite understood the local fascination with watching boats run around in circles, and even the thrill of the Blue Angels eventually wears out its welcome after years of having one’s house rattled by Navy jets. (If I had a nickel for every time the Blue Angels buzzed my backyard in full formation, I could buy myself a latte.)

Still, it’s not the annual festivities I begrudge, even if I usually choose not to participate. It’s the goddamn traffic.

My part of the city is normally blessed with multiple routes in, out and through the downtown, enough to cope with nearly any traffic situation, but for one weekend each year I might as well be living on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall. Up over the hill to the East of me is the lake, where absolutely everybody else in Seattle is now headed. To the North, the main thoroughfares and the surrounding side streets from Lake Washington Blvd. to Beacon Hill Ave. and everything in between, are blocked by an impassable glacier of traffic. And my usual western route to I-5 and the many options of the Duwamish Valley beyond is transformed from a five-minute sprint into a 45-minute slog through a swamp of equally pissed off drivers.

Cut off from even local amenities, my only escape lies to the South, where I intend to head off soon, before the annual Seafair sclerosis clogs those arteries too

I mention all this not just to complain (though I do like complaining), but rather to make a couple points. First, mine isn’t the only neighborhood subject to occasional or even regular invasions due to special events or local amenities. I live walking distance to a couple of pretty spectacular parks on a lake, a luxury that is well worth the occasional street closure or traffic nightmare. So I have no sympathy for folks who, say, choose to live near the Woodland Park Zoo, and then bitch about the parking, or who live near Gas Works Park and fight planned concerts there out of concern about the crowds. I have empathy, but no sympathy. Like me, complain all you want… but then suck it up and deal with it.

Second, this is likely the last Seafair in which the northern frontier is virtually walled off from me. This time next year light rail will be operating through the Rainier Valley, providing yet another route in and out for us luck Southenders… a route mercifully not subject to the whims of local traffic. A route, by the way, that will prove a fast and affordable alternative for Seafair celebrants from outside the neighborhood, who’d rather avoid traffic than help contribute to it.

Keep that in mind this November when you’re asked to tax yourselves to extend light rail through other neighborhoods.